The most common question about our executive perspectives section is whether these pieces are genuinely written by the named executive or largely drafted by their communications team.
Why this question matters
The value of executive perspective content depends partly on genuinely reflecting that executive's own thinking, and readers reasonably want to know how much distance exists between the named author and the actual writing process.
Our honest answer
Most executive perspective pieces involve some drafting support - this is common practice across the industry - but we require the named executive to substantively review, edit, and approve the final content, and we push back when a draft reads as generic communications material rather than a genuine individual perspective.
Why we push contributors toward specificity
We specifically ask for concrete, checkable examples rather than general statements, since we think that pressure test reveals whether a piece reflects genuine individual thinking or generic messaging, regardless of who did the initial drafting.
Why we think this standard is the right one
We'd rather hold a realistic standard about drafting support while still requiring genuine substantive engagement from the named author, than pretend a standard of pure, unassisted authorship that doesn't reflect how this content is actually produced across the industry.